affect passengers. later, harold pulitzer talks about a surge in the popularity of abraham lincoln and his political legacy in modern times. clear, none of this is necessary. it is happening because a choice that republicans in congress made. they have allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to reduce the deficit. let's make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on january 1st. this discussion on revenue, in my view, is over. taking on the spending problem here in washington. host: sequestration begins in

earnest with an announcement by the president and office of management and budget. welcome to "the washington journal." as the sequestration has begun, $85 billion is at stake. you have heard from the president and the speaker of the house. now it is your turn to weigh in on the mandatory budget cuts that are taking effect effective today. the number is 202-585-3884, democrats 202-585-3881 for republicans 202-585-3882 for independents. you can also send us an e-mail, the addresses there.

we want to begin by showing you some of the headlines around the country, beginning with "the chicago tribune," regarding the sequestration. the president's home town newspaper -- from "the atlanta journal constitution," -- and on the front page of the "long beach press telegram," they say -- the sequestration will cost

$250,000 -- will cost 750,000 jobs. this morning in "the fort wayne indiana," no end in sight. we are going to take a look at more of the covers. let's go to the phones. first of this terry in hagerstown -- first up is terry in hagerstown. caller: i hav eto admit you remind me of a stand-up comedian. these are not cuts. these are a reduction in increased spending. i find it totally amazing that people are freaking out over a two 0.5% reduction -- a 2.5%

reduction in increased spending. my income, your income, it dropped. i guarantee you i cut more than 10% out of my budget. the government is not cutting its spending. it is spending more. we have the liberal media absolutely freaking out telling us the world is going to end because they are not going to spend as much as they wanted. >> terry in hagerstown. let us move to surely in maine on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. all money that goes to the gas companies, why won't the republicans' budget on getting rid of those benefits for the gas companies? the gas prices go up and we are still paying the millions of

dollars -- that would almost be enough to cover our deficit. it is really disgusting. host: we are talking about the mandatory budget cuts, not so much the gas situation. caller: we could have the budget cuts if we had the income that we were giving away. sequestration is ridiculous. the republicans have to budget a little bit. they are so stubborn. host: our next call comes from brunswick, new jersey on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to make a comment.

mostly i agree with obama's policies. even the sequestration is harsh, some kind of cuts need to happen so they can go back to the people and the next that would be a balanced approach. we have tax increase. we need some kinds of cuts. i believe the president could have taken some kind of step to prevent this from happening by giving something to the republicans. next up would be a balanced approach. host: "the wall street journal" this morning --

this is what the president had to say -- [video clip] >> i believe we cannot replace these cuts and a balanced approach that has something for everyone. smart cuts, entitlement reforms, tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses. also we can responsibly lower the deficit without blaming or forcing our parents to scramble for child care. i do not think that as partisan.

it is what iran on last year. the majority of the american people agree with me. wheat is the republicans to contradict or kebab -- which is the republicans in congress to catch up with their own party. i do know the republicans in congress who privately say they would rather it close tax loopholes that montes go through. i know democrats that would rather do smart untitled and reform them but these cuts go through. there is common sense on capitol hill, it is just a solvent group right now. we want to make sure their voices get heard. i'm going to keep reaching out to them, but individually and as members of the house.

i will say to them "let's fix this." the greatest nation on earth does not conduct its business in a month to month increments or by careening from crisis to crisis. host: the president talking about the sequestration, which went into effect on midnight. mandatory budget cuts will be taking effect. ronald as calling us from pennsylvania on our line for republicans. caller: i did not understand why congress had to take off and go home when there was stuff to be done. it is pretty sad. everyone is taking a cut in pay. why don't we cut their pay? they do this all the time. host: who is your caller:

representative bob casey. host: and are you going to send him a message? ♪ i will do that. if i ever republican in the congress i would be there. they're not doing their jobs like they should be doing. host: we will move on to pat in south carolina. caller: it is our tax money they are giving to oil companies and special interest people. it is our tax money -- they do not want a cut. host: why do you think they don't want to cut it? caller: they are making money out of this.

they do not have any money in their pocket. they leave as millionairess. it is not special interest people. remember that. they switched the voting area just for this purpose. host: billy on our line for independents. caller: [indiscernible] no party affiliation. host: tweets peter as an independent, your thoughts? -- we have you as an independent, your thoughts?

caller: it is abuse in the government on spending. host: we want to show you what speaker boehner had to say. house speaker boehner said this yesterday after a meeting with the president. [video clip] >> the american people know the washington has a spending problem. while there are smarter ways to cut spending than the process we are about taejon, the house should not have to pass a third bill before the senate does anything. the house is laid out a plan to avoid the sequestered. i would hope that the senate would act. let's make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on january 1. this discussion about revenue,

in my view, is over. it is about taking on the spending problem in washington. the house is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government passed march 27. i am hopeful that we will not have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we are dealing with the sequestered at the same time. i hope the senate will follow suit. host: that this house speaker boehner yes today at the white house. this is the article in "the new york times," -- it gives mr. been a victory with his increasingly conservative managers -- e

back to the phones and our discussion regarding sequestration and mandatory budget cuts taking effect. victor is calling us from silver spring maryland on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. as far as i'm concerned, the republicans -- if you want to do some cutting eliminate the spending on the obamacare. i heard something last night that scared the pants off me, apparently there is going to be a new tax, a very high tax, that

is going to be laid on the insurance companies. you know that the insurance companies are going to pass that on to the consumers. this has got to stop and obama care is extremely bad news. you people who voted for this, you are going to rue the day that you did. host: alabama on our line for independence, -- for independents, you are on the air. caller: it is just typical, but business versus government. -- big business versus government. there are things they both can do. any time neither is willing to take the budget, who takes the hit? that is the millddle class peop.

there really should be a better way. government should be the first to make the example. host: how would you remedy the situation if you're here in washington d.c.? caller: i would try to make myself familiar with every thing from entitlement cuts to tax loopholes. there are things that could be compromised on both parts. i think it is a case of classic negotiation. people being smart about things and compromise on both parts. neither party is willing to bite down at all. that is where the sequestration

came in. host: if you go to our web site, c-span.org, you will find two links to documents that came out last night. the first one is an immediate release -- is a media release that came out from the president paused desk. he says -- you can read more about that at our website, c-span.org. greensboro, north carolina on

our line for democrats. caller: what we are looking at is a classic example of he tried on -- of hatred on what some would call the 21st century style of the civil war. what concerns me most is we never talked about harlem, what happenst to people. the media is focusing so much on other things. and a ministryt of a system that pays more taxes than the rich that cats that they are trying to get. i think it is irresponsible on

their part. now that he has a second term it is "we must destroy him." they're trying to make a responsible for cutting back on medicare, medicaid, roe v. wade, and everything that was accomplished from roosevelt. host: yesterday the president was asked why he cannot just assemble congressional leaders to get together and refuse to let them leave until its quest to deal had been reached? calle[video clip] >> couldn't you just have been down here and have refused to let them leave the room? >> jessica, i am not a

dictator. i am the president. ultimately if mitch mcconnell or john boehner say they need to catch a plane i cannot have secret service block the doorway. i know that this has been -- even though most people agree i am being reasonable, most people agree i am presenting a fair deal, the fact they do not take it means that i should somehow do a jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what is right. they are elected. we have a constitutional system of government. the speaker of the house and leader of the senate have

responsibilities. what i can do is i can make the best possible case for why we need to do the right thing. i can speak to the american people about the consequences of the decisions congress is making or the lack of the script -- or the lack of decision making by congress. ultimately it is a choice they make. this idea that there is somehow a secret formula or secret way to get seat be greater -- to get speaker boehner or mitt mcconnell to say " your right -- right," i think're if there was a way to do that i would have tried it. host: you notice in the last

pronouncement that he used a mixed metaphor for folks that are fans of science fiction. it was covered by the papers. they have the president with the body from a star wars and the face of star trek. ralph is on michigan on our line for republicans. caller: that whole joke about obama talking about science fiction, he has no idea what he is talking about. he is the one that created sequestration. all of these other people think the republicans did it. i think not. the republicans want this

country to survive. obama wants to destroy this country. host: the president may have proposed it but the republicans in the house and senate voted to go along with it. caller: they were in the minority. host: they are the majority in the house, though caller: not with the sequestration went through. host: let us move to tom in virginia. caller: recently the congress passed this superstorm sandy bill. there was controversy because there were billions in port. hear is stuff you don't about when it comes to lawmakers' spending our money. you have cuts to people who are

hard working and yet they're still billions of going out that are wasteful. host: we have to reset in lynchburg, kansas on our line for c democrats. caller: my comment is if the rich owns 90% of the wealth in america, they need to spend -- they need to pay 90% of the taxes. get back to work. host: thanks. regarding taxes, laura writes to us on twitter -- we also have this one from someone who sends us tweets all the time --

he writes we wouldn't have this problem with the federal reserve couldn't print. this is a story in "the wall street journal," -- you can go on our website and see the fed chairman's testimony. back to the phones, henry in

tennessee on our line for independents. you are on "the washington journal," what you think about sequestration? caller: it seems to be politics as usual. i never heard anyone defend politicians. let's face it they are focused on -- think lly to [indiscernible] it is just an observation. it is one party. it is the one person. it is the whole d.c. racket. host: we are going to move on to john in pennsylvania. caller: i just wanted to say obama was a little weak.

he should have stuck to his guns as far as the two hundred $50,000 threshold. -- the $250,000 threshold. john boehner and the republicans are so bored that all they care about is the rich in country. they do not care about the working families in this country. he doesn't realize who he is hurting. he is hurting single mothers, working poor, middle-class families that are just scraping to get by, so he can protect big corporate companies, oil companies, stuff like that as far as i'm concerned. one question i have had is to the subsidies to these oil companies and other big corporations -- do they still get their subsidies? or is that being cut?

host: the republicans are featured prominently on the front page this morning of "the standard times," a " the president. -- they " the president and mitch mcconnell. "i will not be part of any backroom deal and i will not agree to increase taxes." and house speaker john boehner, "the president got his tax hikes." host: go ahead, abbad. caller: i just wanted to say i agree with the reject the judicial system should cut their pay.

i also believe the democrats and republicans are working together and that is why not much is getting done. they are both in the top 2% of the economies themselves. most of them are wealthy people and i believe that's they should cut their pay. what hundred 70 four thousand dollars for each congressman plus their staff is just out of control. if they need a pay raise they just pay themselves. have a good morning. host: we have a tweet -- in " to the washington post," we are clinton take a look at two examples of for the cuts are going to take place.

the first is the transportation and security commission, which must save $398 million. it could for low 50,000 employees for as many as seven days. -- we'll take a look at another example in a second. katharine in new hampshire on our live for independents. caller: i have a suggestion for raising revenue. it is a win-win for everyone. it will lower the 16 trillion which will help the bouncing budget. it will also help american citizens.

during world war two more bonds were issued. today we could issue u.s. debt bonds to americans only. these bonds would pay down only the 16 trillion dollar debt and they would give 3% interest in 20 years. there is no place to save money. for most cds and banks, they pay out only 1% interest. people would earn a 2.5%, 3%. most of the people would spend it back into the u.s. economy. these debt bonds would be sold at u.s. post offices for a small

fee, say $1. that is also helping the u.s. post office. host: from north carolina, steve your thoughts on a mandatory budget cuts taking effect? caller: good morning. i think it has been proven over the last four years that regardless of what this president does or says the republicans are going to kick against him. i feel they should do what is best for the american people. he was elected. he is doing a great job. they need to get over it. he is going to be our president for the next four years. i really believe that everything he did or proposed, john boehner and the republicans are going to kick against it. i also think it has a lot to do with his skin color. host: we are quite a tall of

yours about the next installment of " the the first lady's," this was going to be looking at abigail adams. she was considered more modern for her time. she was called mrs. president by detractors and was outspoken on her views on slavery and women's rights. she provides a unique window into colonial america and her life with john adams. our program includes philadelphia and washington. we will take your tweets and facebook comments. this is live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. back to the phones, terry in north carolina.

caller: i would like to make one quick comment to the guy who just called in from north carolina, i never woke up in the morning -- a i did not know where they get this thing on skin color. it is so offensive that it is unreal. you are saying now that republicans take money because they voted for it? does that mean that democrats take blame because they voted for the of iraqi war? they are going crazy. we can even get back to where we were two years ago. something is wrong in this country cannot do that. host: we are quite a see another example of the mandatory budget cuts that will be taking effect

under the sequestration. this is from " to the washington post," -- -- this is from "the washington post," -- bill in teresa, wisconsin. go ahead. your thoughts on the mandatory budget cuts? caller: when ronald reagan was

president, i did not know how many speeches he gave -- it does not hurt this country to be in debt. they figure if they put the country in debt they can do away with social security and medicare. george bush put two wars on the credit card. that proves the republican 's plan is put the country in debt, do away with social security and medicare. that is how they are going to get away with it. when i see people going to rise up against these guys?

host: the lead story in "the kansas city star," -- back to the phones, willie in lakewood, washington. caller: good morning. i am all for this sequestered. mitch mcconnell made statements that he was going to do nothing

for this president. i am waiting on the call for all veterans to come to washington shoulder to shoulder so we can -- and and ensure a new government. these fools think that we do work for them. they are doing things for their own personal gain and we are taking it on the chin every time they get a little squabble going on. this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen in my life as a human being and american. but host: -- host: we have another tweet-

-- still an individual writes -- another story in the headlines -- they are talking about the keystone pipeline. the state department issued a revised statement -- back to the phones, tim in

illinois on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment on the tax bill and how our country has had it backwards for quite a while. host: what do you think of the mandatory budget cuts? caller: i think that is out of line. host: why is that? caller: the money should be there in the first place. the money could be there if they could go into the taxes and do it right.

tax by resource usage. i have no children. they are rewarding individuals to have children by giving these huge tax refunds. i pay over $12,000 in taxes. i know somebody who has several children and they got back $7,000 in cash. host: in "the observer," -- [video clip] >> the good thing about america is sometimes we get to these bottlenecks and we get stuck. we have these sharp partisan

fights but the american people practical. that common sense practical approach wins out. i think that is what will happen. to make a final point about the sequester, we will get through this. this is not going to be an apocalypse. it is going to hurt individual people and the economy over all. host: the president yesterday at a news conference a couple of hours prior to the sequestration going into effect and mandatory budget cuts going into effect. our next call comes from bakersfield, california for are lined for independents. caller: merry sequester.

i wonder what our creditors think. it seems like our leaders are using the sequester as an umbrella to not be accountable to the american people for these cuts. it seems extra mitt capricious and arbitrary. anyway, it would appear my congressman was not able to step up to the plate and work out some sort of meet your non- partisan arrangement. host: i do not know if your representative is here in washington or back in the district. what are you going to tell him about these mandatory budget

cuts and how you want congress to handle this? caller: first i would ask to what he is doing in bakersfield and not washington. we work five days a week, we put in 40 + hours a week. i want you in washington. you do not need to be in bakersfield. i need you in washington, trying to work out a deal. this is some waste in defense area. there is waste in the public sector. host: that is the last word for now regarding sequestration and mandatory budget cuts. coming up, we will continue our conversation regarding sequestration with national journal's fiscal and economic policy correspondents, nancy cook. later on karen jacobs will talk

to us about the state of u.s. air travel. we also want to let you know that this weekend book tv and american history tv will be featuring the literary life of albuquerque, new mexico. a special block featuring all of our albuquerque book programming, including a look at one of the rarest items of western americana as we explore the life and times of billy the kid. for more information, go to our website, c- span.org/localcontent. >> today you are in the historic zimmerman library.

we are in the conference room which was at one time one of the rooms used for rare books and materials. what is in front of us is the 3 millionth volume to the library, which we will be celebrating on april 1. it is the authentic life of billy the kid, probably the most important book of western americana. it is one of the most wrist books. we only know of six copies of this particular petition that is autographed in the country. three of those are in private hands. one is here and the other two, we are not sure. it is a pleasure to have this rare material. it really sets the stage. it is the fountainhead for all

of billy the kid history. the intertwining of the myth and legend but the facts -- legend with the facts really stem from this book. this book was written in response to a lot of books being printed in new york city that really exaggerated the kid, they almost made him a hero. pat garrett was being seen as the guy who ambushed billy. he wanted to set the record straight by writing this biography of billy the kid and how it all happened. it becomes the first -- the only firsthand account of what happened that day in july 1881.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me is nancy cook, political and economic correspondent. welcome to the program. late last week he wrote an item under the headline "the overhyped, overblown sequester fears." if that is the case from your perspective, why all this focus on the sequestration? who guest: it is a big deal over the rock -- it is a big deal over the long run. necessarily address the long-term budget issues we have. it is cutting from discretionary spending, which we have already been cutting through the budget control act. in the short run it is not

necessarily a huge deal. it is not going to plunge the economy back into a recession. a lot of people are not going to see furloughs' until mid april. the point is that it buys congress time to find out how to undo the sequester. all the cuts are not going to start happening today. we are not going to see this doomsday scenario on march 2. host: another month before real cuts begin to kick in for the majority of those people. a lot of those folks will be federal employees. tell us how it will affect them sooner. guest: they are could face 22 days of furloughs. if agencies start furloughing employees in mid-april, that is when people take the mitt -- when people take time off -- these people could face 20% pay

cut. that is a huge problem for those people and it could have an impact on state economies, consumer spending. an interesting that the point is that the majority of federal employees cannot live in the dc area. there are federal workers all over the country. these are places that will be hard hit. >> we are talking with nanticoke from the national trial. she is the economic and fiscal policy correspondent. we are gonna be talking about the sequestration and the economy. if you want to continue the conversation join in. 202-585-3880 for democrats, 202- 585-3881 for republicans, 202- 585-3882 for independents.

that theying earlier federal employees will start to feel this at the end of this month, march going into april. for the rest of the federal government, what happens over the next six months? guest: people are going to get furloughed. for the next people we will see the long-term unemployment. it in april, cuts to benefit checks. then state economies will feel it because there are a ton of programs that are funded by the federal government, largely that benefit states. states are going to have to figure out how to cut those programs. a lot of those programs help low income people. nutritional assistance, mental health services, child care. we will start to see the broader effect of the economy in july and september.

that is when we will see economic growth, potentially. there will be some job losses as a result. there will be this slow-motion economic impact. we haven't had a sequestered before so no one is exactly sure what the long-term economic impact will be. you also wrote the sequestration is not an economic or policy fight, it is an ongoing political argument about the amount of money the government can spend and the manner in which it does. to that and we have a tweet from barbara -- guest: there is a different philosophy between republicans and democrats about what the size of the federal government

should be. republicans definitely want to see a smaller government. they see the sequester as one way to start reducing the spending of federal government. the democrats think spending does need to be reduced but elected do it slowly over the next decade. host: are next call comes from a john on our lives for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. there are many of us out here who would be happy to pay taxes to pursue happiness in the way we choose. that would mean we take taxes on marijuana, we pay taxes on prostitution, we would pay taxes on other pursuits of happiness so the government has no right to interfere with. that it's all the economic problem. that is my suggestion. host: another caller suggested

issuing bonds, like war bonds. guest: the larger solutions we need is some sort of resolution on how much money we bring it to the federal government and how much money we want to spend. right now those things are out of whack. it is an issue of the taxes and spending rather than some of these other things like buying bonds. host: newcastle, pennsylvania on the power line for democrats. you are on the "the washington journal." caller: thank god we have john boehner because we have someone there with some sense that is going to look out for the american people.

-- after january the first husband has actually lost about $85 per month out of his paycheck with the raise in taxes. mr. obama said it is just going to be on the rich people. we make about 50,000 people per year -- 50,000 per year. we are not rich. since he has been in office the national debt has gone up between five trillion dollars and six trillion dollars. if we do not go along with what john boehner is trying to do and do something about this, where are we heading? we cannot be spending what we do not have. host: nancy? guest: i think she was talking about the expiration of the

payroll tax holiday. that was part of the year-end fiscal cliff deal. the deficit is actually shrinking right now. we have this debt issue over the long run. the annual deficit is expected to shrink and it is expected to shrink for the next five years. there is some debate publicly about do we need to do spending cuts right now to deal with the deficit or is it something that can wait? host: next up is tim in mishawaka, indiana. guest: good morning. caller: i was wondering if anyone could tell us what the impact would be on the treasury from all of the money that is being taken out through the sequester.

guest: it seems like there were two parts to that question. one was how our consumers' spending the -- anytime you take money out of the economy there is a sense of fiscal drag. the economic growth is expected to slow down about 0.6%. we are not exactly sure how it is going to affect consumer spending. the deal also brings its fiscal drag on the economy. we are not sure what will happen. in terms of treasury, the office of management and budget released a big report last night the talk about different ways anthe different agencies ae going to be effected.

it is interesting because the administrative offices are going to face the same budget cuts as other places. the department of treasury will also figure out how to cut costs. host: next up is from our line of democrats. caller: i was a dot for 30 years. i am worried about the defense preparations for next year. if we have to make all of these drastic cuts are they still going to go after federal workers? before you go -- host: before you go can you tell us exactly where you work and give us an indication when you are going to be furloughed? caller: they are negotiating right now. they are in the timeframe to notify the police.

the four fifties are about to be cut. host: thank you for your call. guest: federal employees could face up to 22 days. some may face less. i talked to some people from the home and security department, they are going to face 14 days. we are waiting on guidance about how that is going to roll out. in terms of defense appropriations, that will be part of the fight at the end of march. this is the next budget fight that is going to be coming up by march 27. as congress fights over how to fund the government over the next year, the defense appropriations will be part of that. part of that fight will be should the funding be at current level, pre-sequester level? we will see some legislation

surrounding that and some bills coming out this coming week. host: how is it determined to get furloughed? is it by seniority? by position? guest: that is going to depend across the board cuts will affect every agency that is part of the deal to make everyone feel the pain. there is some flexibility on how they decide to cut from that individual program. how much money do they need to cut and when will be cut start to take place? will they furlough people in april or maybe they will wait until may. many federal employees are unionized. you have to negotiate with the unions to figure out the timing and structure of those furloughs. host: is the size of a person's paycheck going to factor into whether or not taken furloughed. a caller said he had been

working with defense -- defense department 30 years. maybe they could furlough him rather than someone who had been working with the office only five years. guest: that was one idea they had to make the furloughs less painful on certain people by furloughing people who volunteered or who had asked for a vacation time or people who were closer to retirement or were higher up on the peekskill and would not mind taking a pay cut for a while. -- pay scale and would not mind taking a pay cut for a while. it will be agency by agency and union by union. host: we are talking with nancy cook, who covers fiscal policy for the national journal. we are talking of sequestration and when specific cuts would take place and how much of an impact sequester would have on the economy. bernie is on our line for

republicans. go ahead. caller: i am please the republicans have done be unpopular thing. 70% of the country believe the democrats are doing the right thing with regard to running the country. i believe the debt will eventually put us into a position with the probability of becoming another increase or worse. that is when the political problems start, when you have people rioting in the streets. the republicans have taken the high ground. if they are going to pay a price, let them loose. i am a republican. i would like to see a republican

lewis -- lose rather than continuing this policy of going into higher debt, which will cost the country and my children and my grandchildren. guest: there are two questions. one is the political question of who is going to be blamed for the sequester. the public sides with president obama on all of these negotiations and fights over the sequester so far and would blame the republicans disproportionately if it would happen. it will be interesting to see if that continues now that the sequester cuts have taken place. will that be the place in may or june if the sequester cut stay in place and people are starting to feel the economic pain. the second question is about the debt levels of the country and whether or not this is going to reach a crisis situation.

the congressional budget office, which is the official scorekeeper, has research that shows the deficit does start to rise quite high again at the end of the next decade. that is due to rising health- care costs for medicare and medicaid. that is something both parties will need to think about in the long term over the next 10 years. over the short term, the deficit is decreasing. health-care spending, the rate of growth, has slowed down. we do not have an eminent debt crisis. the question is, politically, when do we start thinking about the long-term debt issues. do we want to think about them this year as the republican once? or can we put them off 10 years as the democrats want and what for the economy to get better. host: next is tanya calling from virginia.

caller: hi. i have a response to people calling in about being sequester and government employees losing jobs. i have been laid off twice. i am in the construction industry as an architect. i have seen job layoffs quite a few times during this downturn. i do not really feel like in the employee, but as they work for private or government, should be entitled to their jobs. you have to make cuts where it is necessary and reinvent yourself wherever you find another job. yet the question i have is about the budget itself. as people do their research and look at how the budget is laid out, they would see that government pensions take about 22% of the budget. health care takes up another 22%. dell's are the 2012 figures. -- those are the 2012 figures.

if you look at what the actual budget numbers were from the projections, you will see that government pensions always went over budget and health-care and welfare was often under budget. guest: i do not have the budget figures off of the top of my head to talk about how we spend on government pensions. i am not sure if it is more or the same as what we spend on health care. i would be surprised by that, but i did not have those figures in front of me. host: in usa today, a story with the headline, spending cuts will be a slow bleed. few federal employees will be furloughed before april because the government must give workers 30-45 days notice before taking action. the biggest target plans to give its workers notice march 15, which means no furlough until

late april. there was a discussion about this in recent weeks here in washington. even though we were headed toward the sequestration, these notices had not gone out. the furloughing of federal personnel was going to be delayed by another month or so after the announcement was made today. guest: what that means is it will be hard for the agencies if the sequester sticks and they do not start furloughing people until april or may. they are going to have to make those cuts over a shorter time period. you will be looking at making cuts from may until september. you would have to make deeper cuts than you would if you spread it over a longer period of time. host: pat on our line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am glad i got in on this one.

i think it is pathetic for our elected officers and representatives to go to washington getting taxpayer money and then not solve problems. that is not that every problem can be solved, but worked at it and do a good day's work. put your effort in there because you are being paid taxpayer money and you are working for the taxpayers and not for the president. the bid you are working -- you are working with the president to solve problems for america. it is embarrassing for us as americans. one of the model to the world and we are spatting like a bunch of sixth graders on the playground about who did what. guest: but the caller is expressing is something that a lot of americans are feeling now.

this is one of many fiscal battles we have faced going back to 2011 when we were fighting over the debt ceiling. now we are fighting over the sequester. this is the latest battle. people are exhausted and they are tired and they really want the government to move on to other things. there is a certain amount of frustration that congress cannot resolve these things. there was a lot of tv news coverage on thursday as congress people were going home to the district said they were leaving before the sequester cuts hit. as i said earlier, these are huge philosophical differences that the two parties are having problems reconciling and it is leading to gridlock when they cannot come to an agreement on the sequester cuts. in reality, no one thought they would take place. host: according to a gallup poll, 56% of americans believe the nation's economy will suffer this year if sequestration goes

into effect. 44% of americans believe sequestration will harm their own finances and an equal percent say they will not. why the difference between the folks who say it will hurt the national economy and fewer folks saying it will actually affect their personal economy? guest: people were so focused on the fiscal cliff deal. that fight was about be sequester. a much larger part of it was about tax rates and what people should pay in tax rates. people saw that deal as something that affected everyone because it affected by the or not your tax bill would go off for this year. he sequester is a little bit more abstract. it is a long word. if you are a federal employee, you are paying close attention to it. it has yet to seep into the consciousness of the general public the wavy raising of your

taxes potentially would. host: if you are playing scrabble, it is a 22. word at the base level. on our line for republicans, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a different take on this. i am in favor of the sequester, but for a bizarre reason. i think the last thing the governor did right was world war ii. we have had amtrak, the post office, the situation whereby we have the old joke about the ditchdigger in new york with the four guys watching and federal employee salaries have surpassed by far the private sector salaries over a number of years.

we just do not have an arm on how the bureaucrats think the guilty parties are spending our money. until we get an arm on how we spend our money, i see no solution, democratic or republican. host: nancy cook, go ahead. guest: the caller is talking about the frustration with federal governments spending money on workers and the size of the federal government. the sequester is basically cutting from discretionary spending, which has already been capped as part of the budget control act, which was part of the budget ceiling deal in 2011. the federal government keeps going back to the same pot of money to make these spending cuts rather than thinking about long-term budget issues like trying to cut from the health-

care programs that are driving the deficit at the end of the next decade. regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, you could say a sequester is not the most effective way to deal with the government spending problem. it makes these cuts in and ina rtful, across the board, not going in and figuring out what we need and do not need. and it. tame the deficit -- and it does not tame the deficit. host: jessica is on our line for independents from cleveland, ohio. caller: i work for senior citizens and they receive a lot of these federally funded program like their meals.

what happens to them and the other people who receive housing that is extended through the federal government? what happens to these people if things are cut and how do they survive? thank you. guest: that is one of the interesting things about being sequester. of the programs you just mentioned are federally funded programs. the federal government gives that money to states and they figure out how to spend that money and how to use it through these specific programs. one of the strange points of the sequester is that states are going to have to decide how to cut money from these different programs you just talked about like housing and food for seniors. the impact of that could vary from state to state depending on how your state chooses to make those cuts. the white ohio makes those cuts could be totally different from the way pennsylvania does. . the way -- the way ohio makes

those cuts could be different from the way pennsylvania does. host: next up is rudolph on our line for democrats. caller: i come from the old generation, a vietnam veteran and that type of thing. it seems to me that the cause and effect and the accountability and responsibility -- we as americans do not want to take that anymore. we pay for the bailout. we paid for gm. we paid for dream act and j.p. morgan. we have paid and we have paid. -- we pay for freddie mac and j.p. morgan. let's go for the accountability and irresponsibility of taking a

point of view of, we are in it. we are here. we are at the sequester. let's keep it going. let's see if we can survive america this way. thank you for taking my call. host: nancy cook. guest: the caller makes a good point. we have been spending for a long time. both parties have been as possible for this for a long time. under president bush, he paid for two wars without raising taxes. he passed medicare prescription drug benefits that put a huge hole in the deficit. they blame president obama for doing the stimulus package when the economy looked like it was teetering by ejecting -- injecting that money into the economy. the caller is referencing things both parties have done over the decades that have gotten us into this mess. the caller is representing a

viewpoint that would be more with republicans, that the spending cuts would be a great idea and they are what we need to do to deal with the debt. it is a question of, do you want to make these austerity cuts now or do you want to make them 10 years from now when the economy is a lot of it better? host: a copy of the letter that was sent out by the office of management and budget last night as sequestration mentor cuts went into effect. dear mr. speaker, enclosed please find the management and budget report to congress on the sequestration for fiscal year 2013 required by section 251a of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act. they go on to say that as a failuref the congress' to act, there will be $85 billion in cuts to mandatory

resources. omb calculates that over the course of the fiscal year, sequestration requires a 7.8% reduction in non-exempt discretionary funding and a 5% reduction in non-exempt and non- defense discretionary funding. there is a 2% cut in medicare and 5.1% cut in other non-exempt not defense -- non-defense discretionary funding. tell us, how were these numbers are arrived at? guest: they were parts of the deal that came out in 2011. they came up with this piece of legislation where they said, if we cannot reach an agreement on how to deal with this in a year-

and-a-half, we will have this thing called the sequester. sequester is an old term. they use it in the mid-1980's as a way to think about the deficit and the cuts never happened. the point was to think about making cuts to both sides so that everyone felt the pain. the numbers that were arrived at our part of this deal the way that to the legislative language of the 1980's. they just picked up that legislative language and put it in there. host: seek washington also requires reduction of 2% -- reductions of 2% to medicare. who -- the sequester requires a reduction of medicare of two%. who decided on 2%? guest: it was president obama's

staff and people from house speaker john boehner's republican staffers. it is important to keep in mind that the medicare cuts do not affect medicare benefits. if you are a senior citizen and are getting medicare, your benefits will not get cut. those cuts go to hospitals and doctors and they will see the effects. host: next up is woodbury, new jersey. you are on "washington journal." caller: you keep saying they need to make cuts. why our president is not putting people in place to see where all this spending is happening and to see where all the bad spending is happening? i live in an area where 60% of neighbors do not go to work.

we need to get ahold of all of the fraud that is going on that i see every day. people on food stamps to do not belong on food stamps. i do not see the president getting involved in that. i last heard he was off on vacation and golfing. to me, that is not teaching our kids could spending habits if you are not doing that. any household having financial trouble needs to sit down at the table and revamp what they are spending and where it is being spent. i do not see that happening. why do we have to cut jobs? why cannot -- why can we cut food stamps and get these people towns instead? there are hard-working people weekend train -- the -- why can we cut food stamps and get these people jobs instead?

host: when the president was down in florida playing golf, where was your representative? where were they? caller: we are not happy with him either. that is what i am is saying. there is a lot of fraud going on here. i feel like nobody is suggesting it. we keep giving more money and asking for more money to spend. we have to find out where we can make cuts. i do not think we have to cut people's towns. guest: the sequester is not going to cut in jobs. it will furlough federal employees. they will take on paid leave and the economy will create fewer jobs as a result of the slowdown in -- unpaid leave and the economy will create fewer jobs as a recall -- results of the slowdown in the economy.

host: does the sequester allow for attrition and retirement of people will quit their jobs in the next 12 months? is there a factor that says, we will save some money because we cannot have to put any money out because these people are not coming back? guest: the money is allocated agency to agency. if that is one way to save money, that is a possible way. it is something that agencies are trying to figure out now. what will be our plan to save this money? are we going to furlough people? are we going to make cuts to programs? agencies are in a bit of disarray as they try to sort this out. host: next up is an act in windsor on our line fourth -- is anna on our line for democrats. go ahead.

caller: my question is pertaining to something i have never heard spoken about. people who are using welfare and social security -- hello? host: finish your question. caller: what happens to the money when these people die? it goes back somewhere. how is that factored into the economy and the budget? guest: i am not sure what the caller's question is about benefits. benefits for low income people are not part of the sequester. medicare cuts, they are not happening to people's benefits. people's social security payments on not being affected by the sequester at all. the sequester extends these programs specifically as part of the negotiation -- exempts these

programs specifically as part of the negotiation. host: we have a tweet from we must do better. republicans must start representing the people and stop being the lack of self billionaires and corporations. my question is, with us will be slow in sequestration, is it possible that you can lobby to not have your particular agency cut as much as my neighbor's agency or is it just a standard? these are the numbers and that is the percentage that is going to be cut. guest: these are the numbers and everybody has to make these cuts. there is no way to lobby or get out of it at this point. host: jimmy, you are on the line with the "washington journal." caller: i have not had a raise

in three and half years. i am in an area where we have major activity. we support our community as well as contract jobs. congress has not given us a raise over three and a half years. congress can put their 2 cents in for their race, but they kicked us out. -- their raise. , but they kicked us out. we can do jounce the military cannot do the best jobs the military cannot do. -- to oust the military cannot do. jobs the says-s -- military cannot do. as a body says, we do the bad stuff. when you still -- evidence as we

do the best of. -- everybody says we to the bad stuff. leave us alone. that is my point. thank you. guest: the call as an opinion that is common among federal employees. they feel like the federal employees keep getting squeezed as a prime target for the federal government when they look for more money and places to cut spending. that is a common sentiment. a lot of the department of defense military salaries were exempt from the sequester cuts. those people are not going to be affected. president obama decided bad civilian -- decided that civilian employees will have their pay cut. people are upset about that. host: we have a map here from

saturday's wall street journal that shows the total of nine- farm payroll as of december 2012 -- non-farm payroll as of december 2012. it seems like the areas in green and dark green are the areas that have more military facilities. guest: that is absolutely right. federal workers can work in tons of different places. usually, the biggest percentage of federal workers are surrounding military bases. those are in places like virginia or florida. these are places that will be hard hit because they have those military installations. host: next up is jack calling on our line for republicans. go ahead, jack.

caller: when we filled out the cards at the banks and we would have given every working american was under $50,000, we would have just started being -- $150,000, we would have to jump started the economy and allow faster. that was our own money and we never got to see -- we could have some started the economy a lot faster. that was our money and we never got to see any of it. thus -- guest: that is the stimulus. a lot of people criticized it but a lot of people say it kept the economy from falling into a

deeper recession -- deeper recession. i do not know how much sense it makes to talk about that as an option. host: nancy cook, thank you for being on our program. coming up on "washington journal," karen jacobs will be here to talk about the state of air travel in the united states and what could be ahead now that sequestration is a reality. we will be talking about a lincoln scholar about the recent surge in his popularity and his impact on modern presidents. later this week, "newsmakers." ron wyden of oregon is our guest. he will talk about what he wants to ask nominees and hearings he wants to hold on gas prices and

his priorities as the new committee chairman. you can see the entire interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and tomorrow evening at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> last week, i was asked handord. it is the most contaminated piece of federal property. sequester would really hurt our ability to get that clean up. that affects the columbia river, which is the lifeblood of the pacific northwest. >> with that endanger people in washington state? hull delayed do you think the cuts could make this cleanup -- how delayed do you think the cuts would make this cleanup

process? >> the combination of the delay in the cleanup process and the leaking tanks costs to a threat to the pacific northwest. -- constitutes a threat to the pacific northwest. >> there is a wide expectation that there will be a nominee to replace steven chu. can you address the hypothetical? if he were to be the nominee, would that be a nomination you would be pleased with? we have heard some environmentalists expressed reservations about him. >> i do not get into potential nominees. we have some history with that nominee. we will have some conversations on that and conversations on natural gas and exports. should he or anyone else be the

nominee, he will be leading the agency in terms of promoting the president's policies. i want to ask him a number of questions as it relates to natural gas and renewables. we have this great opportunity right now to tap some of the renewables that we see in our part of the world that have gotten short shrift. geothermal power is striking. we will have plenty of discussions for a new nominee. >> what is his connection to hanford? >> he had a fair amount of involvement when he served in the government earlier. he had some spirited discussions. >> i guess we can look forward to that at the confirmation hearing. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: you are looking at the main concourse at reagan national airport here in washington, d.c. we will be showing you activity at the airport as we continue our program this morning. we will be talking about the state of u.s. air travel. here to talk to us about that is karen jacobs. she works for reuters and covers the airline industry. she comes to us live from atlanta, georgia. good to have you here. the faa will announce on monday which air-traffic control towers will be closed in april due to sequestration. what should travelers expects regarding how they are going to get from one place to another and how that will be affected by the sequestration? guest: the sequestration can have a disrupting affect on u.s.

air travel. the faa has said that it would be forced to furlough air- traffic controllers, which would mean there would be flight delays. secretary of good has mentioned previously that there could be -- secretary lahood has mentioned previously that there could be delays at some of the nation's biggest airports like laguardia in new york. >> we have -- host: we have a headline here from cnn.com. the federal aviation administration has informed contractors that, lacking any last-minute agreement, the agency will move monday to close one under 68 contacted- staffed air traffic control towers nationwide on april 1 and

another 21 towers by september 30. all of the control towers are small and medium-sized and handle 8% of all commercial airline traffic and considerably more business and private airline traffic. the cuts will not force the closure of the airports because an aircraft can land without air traffic control health and operations can be switched to other faa facilities. it will be the smaller airports that will be affected, but not necessarily ones like reagan national airport, which we will be showing folks throughout this interview today. guest: yes. there are plans to furlough air- traffic controllers at some of the smaller airports, which are

important airports for making sure people can get from one place to another. it does not seem as if the biggest airports will see a whole lot of furloughs. it still does not mean flights will not be affected. you have to remember that the u.s. travel network is connected. the smaller airports sea traffic into the bigger airports. -- feed their traffic into the bigger airports. if you do not have traffic controllers seeing how tough it is coming in, there is a possibility of delays. even if you are flying into a bigger airport, you could be looking at a significant possibility of a slight delay. it is a serious issue for all travelers. host: there are also projected tsa staffing cutbacks -- cutbacks due to sequestration.

talk about how the cutbacks will affect going through security checks that -- checkpoints. guest: the transportation security administration would be forced to lay off some of its employees that man there for security checkpoints. that means that you can have longer ways to go through security checkpoints, which would mean travelers need to allow much more time to get through the checkpoints to get to their airplanes. even here in atlanta, home to the world's largest airport, the airport manager said sequestration could force the closure of one of that airport's five runways, which would have a significant affects on the traffic flow.

host: we are talking about the state of u.s. air travel with karen jacobs, a correspondent with reuters. she is joining us live from atlanta, georgia. if you want to join us, call 202-737-0002 for democrats for 202-737-0001 for republicans or 202-628-0205 for independents. you can also send us e-mails or tweets. one of the articles we picked up the two weeks ago written by you, karen jacobs, american to unite with u.s. airways to create number one carrier. airlines have leeway to

increase fares. the type could be a net plus for corporate passengers, who will have to pay higher prices, but will benefit as the biggest airlines seek to improve their services to win more of these lucrative customers. tell us from a consumer perspective, what can we expect regarding the creation of this new airline featuring american and u.s. airways? guest: there are many affects for consumers. some of them good, others might be considered not so good. one of the first is that consumers will have more

choices, especially if they are flying on one of the two carriers. american passengers will have more flight choices because of the combination with the u.s. airways network and u.s. airways passengers will have more choices as well. the consumers might see higher fares because mergers tend to lead to higher fares. there is government data that shows that. once you eliminate a competitor, it gives the carriers that are left more room to raise ticket prices. host: you mentioned more destinations as a result of this merger. was that the key factor in bringing this merging together was there something else behind it? guest: there had been a move toward consolidation in the industry. most people who watch the industry and care about the industry think it is a good

thing. the industry becomes less fragmented. the industry is put on a more secure financial footing. the industry, including the american-u.s. airways deal, we have seen that one deals since 2008, when consolidation starting with delta and northwest. this particular deal, the american-u.s. airways deal, is one that the market has been excited about because of the possibility of combining the two networks and because it moves the industry toward better financial footing. host: our first call for karen jacobs of reuters comes from angel in plano, texas.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i was listening to the caller regarding the airports and the control tower's having to let go of some people. when reagan fired all of the federal controllers, the skies did not fall. hear traffic did not come to a standstill. i travel to major airports like dsw and chicago. i saw people just standing around. they could be more efficient. host: karen jacobs, go ahead. guest: the caller seems to suggest that perhaps the potential disruptions from sequestration that have been discussed may not be as great. it is true that, should see bush

nation be prolonged, these furloughs would have more of an effect over time. if you are traveling through an airport and there are personnel that were there that are not there, that can have some significant effects on your travel. the wait times, longer waits times - wait times, making sure your flight arrives on time, all of those things are at risk. host: we have some people going to the security area at reagan national airport here in washington, d.c. we are talking about tsa and how it is going to affect the operations there. the previous caller said something about seeing a lot of folks standing around. i know it is fairly early in the

morning, but it does seem there are awful lot of false can their -- an awful lot of folks there and not a huge crowd of passengers trying to get through the security screening. is it possible for a seat -- for tsa to save money by paring back the amount of people that have early in the morning and late in the evening? guest: saturday is an off-peak day. u.k. -- you need to consider what your needs are at peak flight times. there could be opportunities for money to be saved simply in the timing and scheduling of people. if you make sure you have the personnel on hand at peak flight times, that is what is important.

host: our next call for karen jacobs from warders -- from reuters comes from mike in west virginia. caller: a lot of the control tower operators are federally funded. i am sure they will have to do something. my concern is, we are having all of these cutbacks to air travel and stuff like that. i have never heard it mentioned in washington, d.c. we are cutting back on these things in the united states that are federally funded, but we are not mentioning if we are cutting that foreign aid to these foreign countries. are we helping our own country first to get us back on our feet. are they going to cut any 80 -- aid to them? guest: --

caller: -- host: we are going to focus on the air travel industry. in your article, americans unite with u.s. airways, is says that leisure travelers are likely to feel the pinch of higher fares more than business passengers. why is that? it seems like business people -- do they buy tickets at a lower price? why would they not feel the pinch as much as leisure travelers? guest: business travelers do not buy tickets at lower prices. business travelers are the bread and butter of the airline industry. part of the hope in the american-u.s. airways deal -- the two carriers have said they expect to win more corporate family.

that will enable them to go after corporate travelers and some of their rivals. delta acquired northwest in 2008. business travelers do not pay lower fares. i do want to focus on the potential effect on leisure travelers. laser travelers tend to look for lower fares. -- leisure travelers tend to look for lower fares and might have difficulty finding them. that is not to say it when not be possible to get lower fares. they will need to have more flexibility in their planning. they will need to make sure that they are looking for their flights a month or even more out and that they are tracking flights over time. they will need to try to

schedule their travel midweek rather than traveling on a sunday or a friday. there will be ways for leisure travelers to still be of a to get lower fares. however, longer-term, the fares are likely to increase. as the airlines continue to rationalize their flying, what we have seen in recent years is that the airlines have cut back their most unprofitable routes and they have tried to match their flying with demand. what that means is that there are seats that were super- discounted. there are not as many of those seats being sold now. it does present a potential problem for leisure travelers who want the lower fares.

host: next up is joe in massachusetts on our line for republicans. go ahead, joe. caller: over the course of the last several years during the tough economic times, corporations have dealt with cuts in the labor force. it surprises me that if you let that sequestration and the percentage of total costs that we are talking about that i am hearing things the there will be interruptions in the services that appear to be minuscule cuts. i am stunned that there cannot be a program to the fact this in an efficient way. we are talking about a minor or a modest cut as a percentage of total spent. i will take my answer offline. thank you.

guest: the caller is expressing a concern that has been voiced by some people. what i can tell you it is that immediately there will not be very many disruptions. the furloughs that will have to take place will likely start taking place in april. once that does happen, there is a possibility for an air travel disruption. we talked about how the government will be furloughing air traffic controllers and how that can affect -- how that can lead to flight delays at the airport. we mentioned that there would be furloughs of workers who do the airport security screening. when you think about the way our nation's travel system is run,

how interconnected it is, if sequestration is prolonged, there could be significant disruptions to air travel. i also want to add that the timing of this could not be worse. we are in march now. but the schools will be letting out for school -- spring break. a lot of people take advantage of spring break to do some traveling. deficiencies in his right around the corner. if sequestration is prolonged, -- vacation season is right around the corner. if sequestration is prolonged, we could be looking at a disruptions to air travel. host: next up this bill in pennsylvania on our line for democrats. caller: i am going to grease on the 19th. i do not want to go -- i am

going to greece. i do not want to go. i will cry when i get there. the merger is the worst thing they ever did. our government is getting to be like a little boy, scaring people. every little thing. we are going to let the criminals out. we should stop doing that to the american people. they do not deserve that. the american people work hard. i am 68 years old. i work hard for my money. i came from greece and i had to work for a living. everybody should start -- stop worrying and stop criticizing. and the -- this country is built but the most beautiful

people in the world. host: is there anything you have heard about sequestration that makes you afraid of flying in the future? caller: i will tell you something. the whole world is scary. if you are going to be scared to fly, you will be scared to drive horse here to drink. i am sorry. host: karen jacobs, go ahead. guest: the caller is facing -- expressing frustration about the effects of sequestration, particularly regarding air travel. that the concerns about air travel might be overblown. the fact that the government would have to cut these employees, that is something that is real. the cuts will have an effect on the services that we see.

host: gregory in pennsylvania is on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: regarding air travel -- hello? host: yes, go ahead. caller: might comment about air travel has to do with the feeling -- my comments about air travel has to do with the feeling of deja vu. the administration is addressing redundancy of some sort that reagan addressed many years ago when he shut the air traffic controller situation down. the government has grown out of proportion and it is unnecessary and redundant. there is to been much confusion in the cockpit and the towers and everything else that grows

along with air travel. simplicity is probably a good thing. i applaud the affect of sequester on the air travel and the controllers. can you confirm or deny my feelings on this. thank you, ma'am. guest: the caller is expressing a view that sequestration will force of government to take a look at what can be cut and what cannot be cut. i think that is true and that is what we have seen happening. it is important to point out that there are services that will be cut back that would not be so good for air travelers. host: we have a tweet, session between jack hutton and american

hero joe. we do regulate airlines. air travel is a trial and expensive. american joe rice, the deregulation of the airline's -- writes that the deregulation of the airlines has made air travel almost free. this merger was done as a result of deregulation. how soon can we expect to see any sort of a change in airline tickets with american or u.s. airways? guest: the fragmentation of the airline industry that followed deregulation is being addressed partly through mergers.

carriers are coming together and they are taking a look at how their networks can fit together. they are taking a look at how they can rationalize their route structures, taking a look at how they can boost their services to consumers. i think you will find many people who will say that mergers have been a good thing for the industry for a number of reasons. for consumers, as far as what they are likely to see, there will not be any effect immediately. keep in mind that this is a merger that will take some time to close. the companies are expecting it to happen in the third quarter. there are a number of approvals that have to be obtained before that can happen.

hopefully, that time frame will hold. we will have to wait and see on that. as far as currently, there is likely no affect on airfares as a result of this announcement. that offense will likely become evident longer-term once the deal is completed, once the carriers start to rationalize the networks and looked out and see what routes can be cut, where can services be expanded. it is not something that will have an immediate effect on consumers. host: karen host: we want you and viewers to check out what the president of u.s. airways had to say when he was talking about why the new airline will be good. he testified last tuesday before

a subcommittee on the proposed merger with american airlines. [video clip] >> it will be good for competition, consumers, and trees. expanding our network for the benefit of customers and employees is the motivation for bringing these companies together. integration of the complementary networks will enhance competition in an already highly competitive marketplace. it will also deliver significant benefits to each of those constituencies. our customers and communities will benefit from better service. our employees will. -- will receive improved pay and better job security. host: your thoughts about what stephen johnson of u.s. airways have to say about the merger. guest: he was clearly articulating what he felt the benefits were. the two carriers, there would be benefits for the shareholders,

customers, and employees. it might be good to mention that before the merger was announced, there have been discussions between the two airlines and various labor groups, pilots, flight attendants, to set agreements that would govern how the various work forces are integrated following the merger. as part of those discussions, there have already been some agreements reached with unions that stipulate once the merger is complete, those groups will see pay raises. that shows how it will potentially benefit the employees. for consumers, they will have

more choices. keep in mind the american -- that american's strength is on the east coast, dallas-fort worth where is based, it also has other hubs in chicago and los angeles. u.s. airways has strength of the u.s. east coast. it has major operations in philadelphia, a charlotte, north carolina, as well as washington's raid in national. -- reagan national. it also has major operations in phoenix. the combination gives them the opportunity to come together and figure out how the networks where best, how we can combine our company in a way that will make sure consumers have more choice, and also how the

combined carrier can upgrade its product offering. i think it is good to mention american is ordering new planes and expects to have one of the most modern fleets among the major u.s. carriers in a matter of years. host: before these carriers moved in together, they need to get the merger approved by the justice department. where are we in that process, karen jacobs? guest: the companies in late january started -- made their filings with the regulatory authorities. in addition to the u.s. government, this deal is also likely to be reviewed by european authorities because american has a significant joint

partnership with british airways, which provides service out of london heathrow, a very important travel market and a very important link in the world wide travel network. the companies themselves have said they do not expect any major hurdles in regards to the antitrust considerations. they pointed out that of the 900 routes they have, there are only 12 overlapping routes. that is not a lot of overlap. the u.s. authorities might want to look closely at the situation african national. -- at reagan national. it is a gate-restricted airport. u.s. authorities might take a closer look as that to make sure

the merger does not impede competition. host: we're talking with karen jacobs of reuters. she calls recovers the travel industry. she comes to us today from atlanta talking about sequestration and the proposed merger of american airlines and u.s. airways. brian in midland, texas, is our next caller. caller: i used to fly continental quite a bit before it merged with united. now it has emerged, tickets have gotten more expensive and the service has been terrible. this merger with all of these airlines is like the oil companies. now the price of oil is sky- high. the same thing will happen with

the price of plane tickets. my second question is, the pay for these people at tsa. i own my own business. my people do not get paid vacations like the government people do. they do not get paid holidays. they do not get paid sick leave, all of these benefits. if an independent company were to run tsa or airport security, they could save a lot of money. host: we saw one executive talk about the positive aspects of this merger karen jacobs -- of this merger. karen jacobs, tell us about the rank and file, the people that work on the airplanes. are they as positive about this merger as the folks in the corporate offices? guest: the one thing american

and u.s. airways have going for them is u.s. airways in particular which had pursued a merger with american, they started that shortly after american filed for bankruptcy protection in late 2001. they were able to reach agreements with the three major unions at american which represents pilots, flight attendants, and ground workers. they gained their support for the merger, which i think is a factor which helped the deal come to fruition. this deal has significant support among a good many employees who would be affected by it. i would like to go back to what the caller said about the

effects on consumers. he mentioned he was a continental customer. i think that points to some potential problems with integration that you can have in a merger. the united-continental deal occurred in 2010. united-continental is the world's largest carrier. that will change assuming the american-u.s. airways deal goes forward. one thing united has talked about this year is how disruptions caused by switching over to a new reservation system alienated some of its consumers. they will not going to rival airlines. that seems to be -- they wound up going to rival airlines. they say that is behind them and satisfaction scores are improving. it does point to potential hurdles in putting together a merger. host: the professor testified

against the proposed merger at the tuesday hearing. this is what the professor had to say. [video clip] >> everyone of us has been to israel before. we have seen many mergers in many industries. we have seen many mergers in the airlines in the 35 years since deregulation. they have always been said to propose these same benefits for benefits like them. quite often, they have been disappointing. the promises are typically not kept. they have led to painful disappointment. i will talk about what i think is relatively simple. that is the competitive effects. there's not time to address it fully. i will say this. in a written statements by read last night -- i read last night, the most remarkable statement was that in this merger among

the thousands of daily flights to cities across the united states controlled by these two carriers, the only overlaps that matter in the whole combined network will be 12 overlaps, 12 flights. we could delve into complexities. i would rather focus on what seems simple. we should ask ourselves, among those thousands of flights, are there really only 12 cities in which these two carriers provide competition with each other that will be lost in this merger? i do not think so. host: karen jacobs, a talk to us about what the professor says will be lost competition through this merger of american airlines and u.s. airways. guest: the two carriers, as they

bring their network together, it does decrease competition in a way. it eliminates a potential competitor, a stand-alone competitor. you also have to keep in mind that the new american will have plenty of competition. they will compete against held the against -- they will compete against delta and united- continental. they are in major u.s. carriers that carries a lot of passengers. there are other carriers such as alaska airlines, which operates a lot on the west coast. jetblue, and there are still near carriers such as spirit airlines which has a lower cost focus. even though i can understand the

concern that mergers decrease competition, the point of the matter is that there are still quite a few u.s. airlines out there in competition -- and competition is still there. among the three major international network carriers that we will have a cement the american-u.s. airways deal is completed, there will be a lot of competition, especially for the lucrative business passengers. host: mike is calling from miami on the line for democrats. caller: i wanted to respectfully disagree with the correspondence from reuters talking about air fares and point you to a "boston globe" editorial from yesterday.

airfares in the last 30 years are 50% down. there have been scores of mergers between different carriers. some went out of business since that time. in 1939, it cost the equivalent of $6,000 for a round-trip ticket between new york and france. in the 1970's, the ticket from new york to hawaii cost nearly $3,000. the item below was found by a friend of mine in the free market years ago. in 1946, a passenger named john connors paid $334 to fly each direction between ireland and new york. that is equivalent today to $3,690 each way. host: karen jacobs. guest: the caller makes an important point that should not

be overlooked. air travel compared to what it was, he cited data from decades ago. air travel is reasonable compared to what it was in previous decades. that is an important point to make, i believe. however, you can also see there is data that shows average air fares have tended to increase with mergers, especially since the 2008 merger. there is some data we have tracked from the u.s. government, the department of transportation statistics. it shows a while there is not a street -- straight increase in fares, the trend line is that the air fares have trended up

since 2008. host: regarding the boeing 787 dreamliner, it has had problems reported over the last few months. what is the latest on the lithium ion battery issue? if the streamliners are grounded -- if these dreamliners are grounded, will that have any effect on the merger? guest: the issue with the 787, the planes have been grounded since mid-february as u.s. and japanese investigators probe the possible cause of battery failures on some flights. you might recall there was a

battery that caught fire on a plane in boston. there was also an overheating of a battery on a japan airlines flight in japan. those are two of the major incidents that led to the grounding of the 50 dreamliners that were in service. it is a serious issue. boeing has been working with its airline customers. it has been talking with the regulatory authorities. it has suggested a fix to the faa to correct the issues. the ball is basically in the faa and boeing court to decide on how to proceed. there are hopes the fix will be valid and can be implemented and that the planes will get the go-

ahead to start flying soon. host: let's take this call from scott in houston, texas, on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is about the effect of sequestration. i am thinking about a common- sense solution. i do not know what percentage of airport employees are employees of the airlines versus federal employees. since there will be effects on the airlines if people are deterred from flying due to the trade-offs coming from -- host: karen jacobs, it did you hear him? guest: it seemed he was cut off at the end. host: i think we lost him.

we will leave it there. we want to thank karen jacobs from reuters for talking to us about the state of u.s. air travel. thank you for being on the program. coming up on "washington journal," lincoln scholar harold holzer on his legacy in impact on politics today. you are watching "washington journal." . today is saturday, march 2. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a house divided against itself cannot stand. [applause] i believe this government cannot endure half-slave and half- breed. i do not expect the union to be dissolved. i do not expect the house to fall. but i do expect it will be divided. it will become all one thing or the other. are the opponents of slavery shall arrest the further spread of it or its advocates will push it forward until it becomes lawful in all states, north as

well as south. what she can always find out more about our 16th president, -- >> you can always find out more about our 16th president online at the c-span video library. >> i was fascinated by her feminist views. remember the ladies or you will be in trouble. i am paraphrasing. she warned her husband. you cannot rule without including what women want and have to contribute. this is the 1700's she is saying that. >> abigail adams this monday night on the new history series. she was outspoken about her views on slavery and women's rights. one of the most prolific writers

of any first lady, she provides a unique window into colonial life and her life with john adams. join the conversation live on monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and anc- span.org. host: harold holzer joins us to talk about president abraham lincoln's influence on modern politics. he is a scholar and author. he is also a fellow at the new- york historical society. thank you for being on the program. why does it seem like president clinton is more popular -- president lincoln is more popular among political leaders and the general public than he was in the past? guest: the spin doctor is at

work in a major way. the movie has been a huge commercial success aside from the critical acclaim. it seemed to have lifted all boats as far as the discussion and scholarship. there was a screening at the courthouse that was widely publicized. the senate had a screening four or five weeks ago i was lucky enough to attend. that was an amazing experience. host: lincoln seems to be invoked by political leaders were often. what was it about his administration that people in the senate and white house are looking for? what kind of lessons and patterns were set up by the lincoln administration that still hold up today? guest: this is not a new phenomenon. if you go back to the 19th century, republicans and democrats have been feuding over who has the best claim on .incoln's legacy 1912 is when the bipartisan

battle began. fdr, clinton, bush. it is extraordinary. i think they all believe lincoln showed them the ability to succeed in a crisis. lincoln faced the worst crisis in american history and a recalcitrant congress, which is not a new phenomenon. despite all that, he managed to steer us to preserving the union and ending slavery. he is a model of success under pressure and success that unfortunately came with a great cost. host: harold holzer is a scholar and the author of "how abraham lincoln ended slavery in america." if you want to get involved in our conversation, here are the numbers.

you can also reach out and touch us via social media. harold holzer, regarding president lincoln, how would he handle things like sequestration and the partisan battles going on between different houses of congress and between congress and the white house? guest: however bad the blue and red combination is, blue and gray is worse. partisanship led to shooting wars in the 1850's in kansas and ultimately throughout the country. for all acknowledgement that he steered us through crisis, he was unable to achieve results in a fully national congress. he had just as much trouble as

president obama is having. the only way the 13th amendment passed is because only no. congressmen and senators voted for it. the rest were no longer participating in congress. it was still hard to get the 2/3 vote. it is hard to know the answer. what lincoln did has become the model for presidents in the modern age. that is to go directly to the people. he did not make speeches or hold press conferences. he did not have television opportunities. he did issue statements, called public letters, trying to get the country behind his agenda. this is another thing we need to keep in mind. abraham lincoln did not achieve his greatest successes through the legislative process. he did them by presidential order, both good and questionable. the emancipation proclamation was a military order by the

commander in chief. there are limitations on presidential orders later ratified by congress. the run-up to the beginning of the civil war, calling at troops, allocating funds, he did while congress was not in session. maybe that is the lesson. wait until congress is out and then do your thing. host: harold holzer four decades studying president lincoln. we will be talking about what his political legacy means in modern times. we will take some calls for harold holzer. the first one comes from paul in indiana on the line for independents. caller: this is a great topic for discussion. it seems we often hear lincoln was against slavery and a racist.

the two should not be completed. slavery is a very ancient institution. hammer of a -- hamarabi dealt with slavery. racism that ended with auschwitz is a much more recent phenomenon. lincoln got in on the tail end of slavery. it did not end in china until 1954. he got in on the side to expert that twisted western thought. he got in on the scientific spurt that twisted western bought into eugenics and that type of thing. lincoln could still be a racist who still hate the institution of slavery. guest: indianapolis is a great

lincoln town with a wonderful collection there. lincoln was always anti-slavery. he was naturally anti-slavery. he could not bear the sight of people being sold at auction, something he witnessed as a young man. philosophically opposed the notion that someone that makes bread is not entitled to earning the money from making the bread, that he had to give the yield of his efforts to another person, a master. he felt that went back to the tenants of the declaration of independence. the matter of racism and race is tricky. lincoln was a man of the mid- 19th century. he grew up in all white communities. he was exposed to very few african-americans in his lifetime. through the years when he met frederick douglass and other models for new order, he

developed a different attitude. he changed over his lifetime. look at the statements between 1858 and 1865, his last year live. in 1858, he said he would never countenance the idea of black and white people marion or black people serving on juries. by 1865, he was calling for the rights of african-americans to vote, the first president to do so. it was an evolutionary process. he was revolutionary by 2013 terms. judging by the standards of the 1860's, he was a rather enlightened white person. host: jerry is also calling from indianapolis on the line for independents. caller: the caller was talking about slavery. i have been collecting history

about lincoln since i was 21 years old. i have so much information about him. the people was treated so bad. lincoln stepped in and got them out of the situation they was in. we need to come together. the president is trying to do the best he can for the world coming together. i love lincoln. he is a good man. he did so much for the country. host: we're going to move on to ron in pontiac, ill. caller: i am wondering about the makeup of the supreme court at the time of the dread scott decision. who was appointed by democrats? were there in the abolitionists on the supreme court, that kind

of thing? guest: that is before my time of expertise. tawny lived on the southern shore of maryland. i think there were predominately democratic nominees. there were no abolitionists on the supreme court in 1857. it was a majority declaring people of color could never be citizens of the united states and slaves could be transported anywhere. lincoln changed that by appointing republicans to the supreme court when he took office. host: what are some of the main qualities of lincoln that leaders talk about? are there any mistaken assumptions being made by leaders in congress or at the white house about president lincoln and his legacy? guest: the battle goes on about whether he truly belongs to the republican party or his core values suggest today he would be a clinton and obama democrat.

that argument is there. lincoln was definitely a spender and a tax are. i do not think that has been accepted by the vast majority of political leaders or historians. his policy was if america was fighting a war, we have to pay for it as quickly as possible. there were bombs, but there was also an income tax but was widely -- there were bonds, but there was also an income tax that was widely objected to. president bush said to me that abraham lincoln used the kind of executive power without congressional approval but was not popular in his own era but has been verified by the test of time. he said my wiretapping and all that is very lincoln-esque. president obama sees the

inspirational nature of lincoln and ethos of living up to the unchallenged. work of america. republicans and democrats can always find something in lincoln to inspire them. better they should emulate lincoln than coolidge. host: you bring up president bush. president george w. bush was at the white house during the tribute to lincoln that took place on february 11, 2005. we will show our viewers a bit of president bush talking about his admiration for president lincoln. [video clip] >> the civil war was decided on the battlefield. the larger fight for america's soul was waged with lincoln's words. he set himself squarely against

the culture that held some human beings were not intended by their maker for freedom. as president, he acted in the conviction of a holding -- that holding the union together was the only way to hold america to the founding promise of freedom and equality for all. that is why in my judgment, he was america's greatest president. host: harold holzer, you were involved in that event at the white house in 2005. talk to us about the prospective and context under which this speech was made and what the relationship was between president george w. bush and president abraham lincoln. guest: we had a program which to run the country for five or six years called "lincoln seen and heard."

the porches -- the portraits and speeches were cited by the great sam waterston. we did it at the bush library. according to white house sources, president bush called president bush and said you have to do this at the white house. it was the most incredible day of my life rehearsing at the white house. we used the map room as the staging area and then performed for members of the cabinet, senate, president, and first lady. it was interesting watching the reaction, what they reacted to and what they did not. every time the might of the union is being addressed, every time he is issuing a presidential order, president bush was deeply engaged. when lincoln was making anti- were statements during the mexican war, saying war is

folly and ends in showers of blood, there was a more glum reaction. it is interesting to watch president react to lincoln. host: go ahead, rick. caller: george bush was talking about lincoln being the greatest president. he will probably go down in history as being the worst. what lincoln did had nothing to do with being a democrat or republican. it had everything to do with being a true christian. he was a true christian. when lincoln freed the slaves, the republican party became the democratic party. with the civil rights act, the democratic party became the republican party.

we have races of people that have still carried on their ancestors beliefs. the bible says the sons will pay for the fathers' mistakes. host: talk to us about lincoln's face and how that worked into his administration. guest: abraham lincoln was a man of faith, but he was also a man of politics. he was a partisan politician. his goal was to create a republican party that would succeed national and to reward republicans with patronage jobs to make sure the party grew and expanded nationally. he came from a very partisan era. as a man of faith, he was an interesting progression as well. he never belonged to a church. he was accused in his earliest political days of being a

skeptic. he had to answer that charge during one of his legislative campaigns and assure people he was a believer. he never did join the church, although he attended. he was very literate in the bible. he read it. he knew it. he studied it. biblical phrases enter his speeches. as he goes on in political life, he becomes more deeply religious. it is almost as if it was impossible for him to accept personal responsibility for 750,000 deaths in the united states to save the union and end slavery. it is almost too much for one man to bear. he shares the burden with god. if god wishes that every drop of blood shall be repaid by another. the judgment of the lord is true and righteous. that is where he begins saying.

he puts it off on divine will. host: jeremiah's calling from michigan on the line from republicans -- jeremiah is calling from michigan on the line for republicans. caller: i am not versed in this era of history much. what strikes me is you mentioned how he had to suspend habeas corpus, raise armies, all of these things without congress in session. it seems the way the 13 colonies formed united states, they were sovereign states and should have the right to secede. it is a voluntary union. his actions on that point set the stage for modern politics where we have presidential powers. correct me if i am wrong. the entire executive branch, the president and wage war in pakistan without congressional

approval or declaration of war. we have come to this point because of lincoln's example. if the system was not designed for the president to be able to make war on states in the union , that is kind of the dark side of abraham lincoln in american politics. guest: his administration and use of executive power certainly signaled a shift in presidential authority in crisis. it was a model created by adrian linkedin to meet an emergency contingency. he would disagree with you about whether the union and compact of states was voluntary. as he put it, a husband and wife may divorce, but the state cannot. the union is perpetual. that is what he based his presidential campaign on.

that is what he based his presidency on. eventually, congressional approval did come for all of the allocations for war and the raising of troops. iran lincoln met an unprecedented emergency -- abraham lincoln met an unprecedented emergency. without a response, we might have balkanized countries on this continent. he preserved the union for a better day. fundamentally, he would say the union was perpetual and deserved to be fought for. host: the caller said he was not well versed in this era. if he wants to become were well versed, the caller would do well to try and find one of the many books authored by harold holzer, author and scholar. his most recent "help abraham lincoln ended slavery in america." next up is alex on the line

for independents. caller: i am 26. i do not know much about lincoln. a call because i wanted to thank him -- i called because i wanted to thank him for having some kind of freedom of speech, on the freedom of slavery. he changed the times of all caucasian americans being in charge at that time. host: regarding the issue of slavery, we have a tweet. harold holzer. guest: history tells the story. inaham lincoln's election

1860, what he said and was set for him in the campaign is all that the republican party opposed was the spread of slavery. keeping slavery where it was protected by constitution and placing it on what lincoln called the ultimate course of extinction. just the idea of preventing new pro-slavery is senators was enough to drive the southern states into confederacy determined to fight for slavery. it is important what is being said. people say the war was over states' rights versus presidential power. they are truly missing the point. the point is brought home nicely in the steven spielberg movie. the book is a young adult companion book to the movie. lincoln did the emancipation proclamation by executive order.

he fought a heroic and questionable battle to get the votes rounded up to end slavery through the 13th amendment. host: harold holzer was also a script consultant for the steven spielberg movie "lincoln. " anthony is our next caller on the line for democrats. caller: think you for spending time with us. i commend you for your body of work. hopefully you can comment on this statement. i believe it was abraham lincoln who stated he had the confederacy in front of him and the bankers behind him. for his nation, he feared the bankers. could you connect that to what we're up against now? we have this military-industrial complex in dating -- invading

impoverished nations. do we not have to fear the more than we do these nations we are attacking and waging war on? this might not be something you would want to comment on. i hope you would in clarify mr. lincoln's statement. guest: among the countless apocryphal quotes attributed to lincoln for a body o -- are a body in which he fears. business interests. as far as i know, that is not something he wrote. lincoln was a supremely confident political leader. people who met him were astonished at how confident and almost egotistical he was.

people expected to be able to dominate him by virtue of education or experience. there were often astonished at the strength he showed in their meetings and the dominance he should. i do not think he feared bankers or the confederacy. he was determined to preserve american democracy and majority rule by whatever means he could reach four. host: president obama reference to president lincoln and at the national prayer breakfast. he talked about being sworn in with one hand on the lincoln bible and how lincoln found strength during his presidency. [video clip] >> to see this country torn apart and his citizens waging a war that pitted brother against brother, that was as heavy a burden as any president will ever have to bear. we know lincoln visited troops

and wounded. he honored vets. as the toll mounted week after week, you can see in the lines of his face the cold -- the toll the war cost him. but he did not break even has a very capable of the sun. he did not break as he struggled to overcome milling connie -- melancholy and despair. he did not break. we know he found solace in scripture. he could knowledge his own doubts. he was humbled in the face of the lord. -- he was humbled in the face of the lord. that allowed him to become a better leader. host: why do you suppose the

president used this reference to president lincoln during the national prayer breakfast? guest: he is under enormous pressure as all presidents are. remembering lincoln's strength and reliance on prayer, but also remembering his political leadership skills make a good combination. i hope for any president of any party, it strengthens their resolve to bear these almost unimaginable burdens. when lincoln was asked about one of the border states, he said, i would like to have god on my side, but i must have kentucky. a man of faith but a man of political reality also. host: the next call comes from michigan on the line for independents. caller: i am wondering if abraham lincoln continued to be

a week -- a whig after the founding of the republican party. did he continue to be as much of a whig as sec retailer? guest: their arguments made he was very whiggish. he did make several important speeches during his presidency. his unprecedented use of executive power during the civil war quickly took him out of the whig reald. -- realm. he embraced the cause and idea of federal authority to stop the spread of authority. that made him a republican. host: john is calling from massachusetts on the line for republicans.

the question or comment for harold holzer? caller: good morning. i come from a point of view where my least favorite president is lincoln. i sit along with the opinions on lincoln. one of my heroes was andrew spooner who was more into- slavery than lincoln. i think the war was a result of economic issues because of the cotton gin and things of that nature. the slavery issue was solved around the world without killing 800,000 americans. i think lincoln is a prime

example of government being overrun. i think this lincoln propaganda for the most hated man of the century, and rightly so when 800,000 americans were killed in the slavery were -- war. the slavery issue was solved from a world without this kind of death. host: john, we will leave it there. harold holzer, go ahead. guest: there has been a robust anti-lincoln tradition that insists the war was fought for in cities reasons that have nothing to do with slavery and had everything to do with the economy and vague notions of economic dominance there were going to be imposed by

industrialists in the north. history does not bear this out. history bears out lincoln really desired to see this union of states continued, for majority rule to continue, and for slavery to be eradicated. this idea he used power for the sake of power, i think it is absurd. to show how far we have come thanks in part to karen jacobs, -- in part to lincoln, the bible that president obama has taken two oaths on, it was not really lincoln's bible. it was one they scurry around to find on inauguration day. it was the bible used in the supreme court. it was read every morning in court. the bible president obama took his oath on is the bible that roger tawny relied on to say

that african-americans should never be citizens. host: how was lincoln viewed by the press at that time? what do modern presidents learn from that experience? guest: was an extremely controversial figure. it was a split. lincoln only got 40% of the popular vote. he was ridiculed by the press. he was lampooned. he was caricatured. at the same time, he had a robust country of people that adored him. -- he had a robust cadre of people that adore him. by 1864, he puts together a majority of northern voters. in the instance of the 13th amendment, he uses all of that

power and good will. we hear sally field seniority most loved man in america he was the most hated, but he was also the most loved. we will be screening the spielberg movie at the hotel where the lincoln family estate in the 10 days running up to the first inauguration. it is very historic and evocative. i guess they have not forgiven him for running out on the bill. host: we're going to go to benjamin from rhode island on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am very inspired and happy you are going to have such discourse and take questions this morning. you listen to someone like ken burns and get the impression

lincoln was reluctant to sign the emancipation proclamation. yet you listen to someone like chomsky and get the impression that his real cause was about the mill worker. he was very dedicated to their cause. i am wondering about your take and analysis on that. what was lincoln's purpose? guest: he was dedicated to the idea of the mill worker owning the mill. he put it slightly differently. the idea of a. mobility is what informed his anti-slavery. -- the idea of of board mobility is what informed his anti- slavery. i take issue about what he said about him being reluctant to sign the emancipation proclamation. the cabinet was composed of more

radical abolitionist who insisted he table it until there was a union victory. the only reluctance he had of signing it in 1863 was that his hand was so sore from shaking hundreds of hands at a new year's day reception that he wanted to wait until he could massage it back to normalcy so his signature and will not look tremulous. he said his whole soul was in it. i believe him. host: david is on the line for republicans. caller: could lincoln have avoided the civil war by requiring federal minimum wage for all workers? the slaves would have been paid. there would not have been any were necessary. eventually, they could be owners of the mill and such if they had

done that. that is my question. guest: that is a new one. that is a good one. slave power was deeply entrenched. slavery was not only about the subjugation of human beings. it was also about economics. slaves were property. they were human property. in the eyes of owners, there were less than human property. they represented the biggest economic silo in the entire southern economy. there was no way lincoln could say you should pay these people because they were owned and clothes and fed by their owners. there was no way to compromise and the end slavery in the 19th century -- and end slavery in the 19th century until the tug had to come. time to have a cliff, a fiscal cliff or slavery cliff where you

say this cannot go on. the greatest presidents came to that cliff and did not let us fall over. host: tell us about the event taking place today and who else will be there today. guest: steve from this network will be an interlocutor after the screening of the movie. some elected officials from the district, some television folks from other networks will not mention. it should be a nice crowd. we will see the film. and that most of the people coming have seen it twice or more. -- i bet most of the people coming have seen it twice or more. then we will have a discussion. host: harold holzer, thanks for being on the program. now we want to take a look at

what is coming up on tomorrow's edition of "washington journal." we begin with a round table discussion on the politics involved in the budget cuts precipitated by sequestration. later, we will be talking with alison young about her recent article about security lapses in labs for the centers for disease control and prevention that could pose by a tariff threats. we will wrap up the program tomorrow with an historical consultant at the national women's history museum. she will be here to talk to us about the suffrage march in washington, d.c. we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. morning at 7:00 eastern time.